Even under the best of circumstances a living philosophical
movement is hard to analyze. In the case of the current naturalistic
movement in America, analysis is especially difficult -- not only
because so many varieties of philosophical naturalism have made
their appearance here since the beginning of the century, but also
more pertinently, because the specific problems to which these
varieties were supposed to have addressed themselves have been
mixed in, if not mixed up, with issues having little or no bearing
on a naturalistic philosophy as such. (The illustrious example that
comes quickly to mind is the charming mixture of dualistic and
naturalistic elements in the ever nostalgic philosophy of George
Santayana, the poet and prophet of the present-day naturalistic
movement in America.)

Yet, no matter how difficult, the undertaking must be tried
if we wish to understand today's most reliable and least apologetic
American philosophical movement. Since so much of the literature
on the movement has been concerned (for polemical reasons) with
its varieties, this essay is an attempt to determine what these varieties may be said to hold in common as naturalistic. In order to
arrive at their common characteristics it will be profitable to consider the movement from three angles: (I) its historical background,
(II) its mode of analysis, (III) its view of the world.

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.